Gregory Koukl's Blog, page 20
March 21, 2016
If Morality Is Objective, How Can We Know It?
Brett explains how we can know the difference between subjective truth and objective truth.
March 19, 2016
A Note to the Unmarried and Childless
Some listeners to Wednesday���s podcast were troubled by Greg���s statement that ���part of being a human being before God is getting married and having a family.��� As single people, this seemed to them to be a painful denigration of their humanity���a claim that single people are failing God and are not fully human.
I don���t think that���s what Greg intended to convey, but I do understand the pain involved with being single, and I have thought quite a bit about how I should view marriage and my singleness as a Christian. I���m posting my response to the commenters here because I���m sure there are many others out there who grieve their singleness.
Getting married and having kids is part of being human (i.e., it's an aspect of humanity that has played a central role in human societies throughout time, created by God to teach about the union of Christ and His church, contribute to our sanctification, etc.)���given to us for our good and His glory, but it doesn't follow that if one does not take part in those things that one is not fully human, nor does it follow that one has failed God if one doesn't marry and have children (only if one despises those things do I think one fails). God calls some to one thing, some to another. I understand the pain of not taking part in these things (believe me), but that doesn't mean I ought to minimize the role they play in humanity.
The problem in our culture today is that it does minimize the value of marriage and children. That is the error that was being addressed on the show. In a time when culture devalues marriage and children, that is the time when the church ought to speak of their great value as creations of God. This is the time we are in.
Am I grieved that I'm not taking part in these things? Absolutely. It is likely that Jesus also grieved over not having these things, so we're in good company there. But these things, great as they are, are merely shadows symbolizing what's to come for us as Christians���i.e., our union with Christ in the resurrection, being united to Him forever and enjoying our place in His body of believers. True, we don't have the shadow (marriage and children) now, but we will one day have the reality. And that will be much, much better than any shadow that points to that reality in this life.
But even though it makes us sad, let's honor that shadow now, not deny or denigrate it (and, in fact, the grief itself honors it because our longing for it testifies of its goodness and beauty), knowing that the complete fulfillment of it will eventually be experienced by us. We know better than most what it means to long for its fulfillment, and that understanding of longing is something we can contribute to the body of Christ, as we should all be longing for its fulfillment rather than being content with the shadow.
I hope those words will bring some peace to those who need it.
March 18, 2016
Links Mentioned on the 3/18/16 Show
The following is a rundown of today's podcast, annotated with links that were either mentioned on the show or inspired by it:
Commentary: Christianity the Cause of Most Wars? Nope (0:00)
Debunking the Religious Wars Myth by Brett Kunkle
Apologetics Mission Trips
About Those Crusades... by Amy Hall (quoting Thomas F. Madden)
The Real Murderers: Atheism or Christianity? by Greg Koukl
Questions:
1. Disagrees with Greg's characterization of being against drinking alcohol (0:24)
2.How do you respond when Christians take verses out of context? (0:43)
Never Read a Bible Verse by Greg Koukl
3. Is it presumptuous to be assured of salvation? (0:53)
Listen to today's show or download any archived show for free. (Find links from past shows here.)
To take part in the Twitter conversation during the live show (Tuesdays 4:00���6:00 p.m. PT), follow @STRtweets and use the hashtag #STRtalk.
March 17, 2016
Resource: A Helpful List of Short Apologetic Videos
Sunday school teachers, youth workers, small group leaders, pastors, and other church leaders are always on the lookout for good resources to help equip their people. So I thought it might be helpful to collect some of the best short apologetics videos that are online and available for free and put them into a single list. Use these to introduce an argument, spark a small group discussion, or even share with your unbelieving friend. And feel free to add your contribution to the list in the comments section.
Faith Refocused (answers the question ���What is faith?��� and describes the relationship between faith and reality)
No Evidence (3 arguments for the existence of God)
Is God Good? (the problem of evil)
Should marriage be changed to promote same-sex couples?
Does the Bible Contain Errors?
The Logical Problem of Evil ��� Part 1
The Logical Problem of Evil ��� Part 2
The Logical Problem of Evil ��� Part 3
What Is an Ambassador for Christ?
Why Abortion Is Unjust Discrimination
Responding to Same-Sex Marriage
March 16, 2016
Links Mentioned on the 3/16/16 Show
The following is a rundown of today's podcast, annotated with links that were either mentioned on the show or inspired by it:
Commentary: Spending Time with Excellent Teachers (0:00)
STR Cruise to Alaska ��� August 6-13, 2016
Commentary: Bible Movie Thoughts (0:16)
The Nativity Story
Risen
Risen ��� The Movie (Review) by Melinda Penner
Questions:
��� Announcements:
Upcoming events with STR speakers
1. Are Christians obliged to have children? (0:39)
2. What to do about a friend who cuts off friendship because of my Christian view on LGBT issues? (0:52)
Is the Biblical Stance against Homosexuality Necessarily Unloving? by Tim Barnett
Listen to today's show or download any archived show for free. (Find links from past shows here.)
To take part in the Twitter conversation during the live show (Tuesdays 4:00���6:00 p.m. PT), follow @STRtweets and use the hashtag #STRtalk.
March 15, 2016
Why Are You Debating?
Tim Challies posted ���7 Rules for Online Engagement,��� a summation of advice found in Tim Keller���s Center Church, and I wanted to highlight one of the rules here:
The sixth rule is Calvin���s and states Seek to persuade, not antagonize, but watch your motives! ���It is possible to seek to be winsome and persuasive out of a self-centeredness, rather than a God-centeredness. We may do it to be popular. On the other hand, it is just as possible to be bold and strongly polemical out of self-centeredness rather than God-centeredness. And therefore, looking very closely at our motives, we should be sure our polemics do not unnecessarily harden and antagonize our opponents. We should seek to win them, as Paul did Peter, not to be rid of them.��� The goal is not to vanquish an opponent or the people who have been led astray by him, but to win them all to the truth.
���We should seek to win them, not to be rid of them.��� That���s always a good reminder!
March 14, 2016
What Should You Do When Your Church Is Moving Away from Biblical Views?
What if the values of my church are starting to look more like the values of the world?
March 12, 2016
Are Vestigial Eyes Evidence of Evolution?
Evolutionists love to point to vestigial structures in the biological realm as evidence for evolution. The argument goes like this: Some organisms contain structures that were once functional in their evolutionary past but have now become useless (or almost useless). In The Greatest Show on Earth, Richard Dawkins writes, ���Vestigial eyes are evidence of evolution. Given that a cave salamander lives in perpetual darkness so has no use for eyes, why would a divine creator nevertheless furnish it with dummy eyes, clearly related to eyes, but non-functional?���
What can we say in response? First, Dawkins asks a loaded question. That is, built into his question is a false assumption. He assumes that God must have created the cave salamander with non-functional eyes to begin with. But that isn���t the creationist���s position at all.
Vestigial structures are entirely consistent with a Creator. These could be structures that were initially designed, but then lost their function through adaptation to a particular environment. Everyone agrees that genuine vestigial structures started out functional and then became non-functional. So, at most, this seems to be evidence for devolution; it���s the degrading of a structure or organ, which was already present. What evolutionists need to show is how the organism got the fully functional structure in the first place.
Maybe some of you have driven an older car in which the air-conditioning didn���t work anymore. The fact that something in the car has become non-functional doesn���t mean the car was never designed in the first place. In fact, it would be foolish to ask, why would an engineer furnish a car with a dummy air-conditioning unit that is non-functional? Of course, this falsely assumes that an engineer actually put a non-functional air-conditioning unit in the car to begin with. Furthermore, the fact that an air-conditioning unit no longer functions does not mean it wasn���t originally intelligently designed.
Both the evolutionist and creationist can explain vestigial eyes. In fact, they explain vestigial eyes in the same way. However, what the evolutionist needs to explain is how the eyes originated in the first place. The loss of a useful organ does not explain its origin.
So merely pointing to a vestigial structure isn���t good enough. The advocate of macroevolution needs to provide evidence for the production of new functional structures, not merely evidence of their destruction. Therefore, in a trivial sense, yes, vestigial eyes are evidence for evolution. Cave salamanders changed. They had functional eyes, and now they don���t. But you are never going to explain the origin of new functional structures, organs, and body plans by providing evidence of a mechanism that breaks them.
March 11, 2016
Links Mentioned on the 3/11/16 Show
The following is a rundown of today's podcast, annotated with links that were either mentioned on the show or inspired by it:
Commentary: What Atheists Believe and How It Fits Reality (0:00)
10 Commandments for Atheists: A Guide for Nonbelievers Who Want to Explore Their Values by Kimberly Winston
Atheism Isn't Simply a Lack of Belief by Tim Barnett
Atheism: More than Just a Non-Belief by Amy Hall (quoting Tom Gilson)
Questions:
1. Tactics to use when talking to a religious pluralist (0:23)
God Cares More about Behavior than Most People Think by Amy Hall
Why You Shouldn't Trust the Feeling that You Don't Deserve Hell by Amy Hall
We're Not Good at Estimating Our Goodness by Amy Hall
Christianity Is the Story of Reality by Amy Hall (quoting Greg Koukl)
The Holiness of God by R.C. Sproul
2. Why doesn't God stop tragedies? (0:43)
If God Is Good: Faith in the Midst of Suffering and Evil by Randy Alcorn
Evil and the Cross by Amy Hall
Pain Now, the Land of Happy Later by Amy Hall
If God Is Good, Why Is There Evil and Suffering? (Video) by Amy Hall
3. Tools to evaluate arguments effectively (0:49)
Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions by Greg Koukl
Listen to today's show or download any archived show for free. (Find links from past shows here.)
To take part in the Twitter conversation during the live show (Tuesdays 4:00���6:00 p.m. PT), follow @STRtweets and use the hashtag #STRtalk.
Why the New Definition of Tolerance Is Dangerous
I received an email objecting to one of Greg���s commentaries on tolerance. In the commentary, Greg explains that tolerance ���involves three elements: (1) permitting or allowing (2) a conduct or point of view one disagrees with (3) while respecting the person in the process.��� In other words, only disagreement calls for toleration; otherwise, it���s simply agreement (or apathy). But not according to the email I received:
You said on Feb 4, 2013 - "Tolerance is reserved for those we think are wrong."
Wrong. Tolerance is removing the right/wrong judgement from your view of other people & beliefs, as long [as] those people and their beliefs don't impede the freedom or well-being of others.
What you're describing is holding your nose and lying about being tolerant. That's not tolerance, that's empty condescension.
"We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant." - Karl Popper
Of course, this response perfectly illustrates Greg���s description of the current understanding of ���tolerance,��� and it struck me, as I read it, how dangerous this view of tolerance is. Here���s what he���s really saying: ���It���s wrong for you to think my views are wrong. Therefore, if you think my views are wrong, then I have a right to shut you up.���
Keep in mind that his complaint here isn���t even about ���intolerant��� actions; it���s about beliefs. He argues that ���intolerance��� means holding a judgment in your mind against someone else���s beliefs. And intolerance (i.e., incorrect beliefs), according to him, should not be tolerated. How far people will go to uphold this new ���tolerance��� remains to be seen. Considering the fact that 40% of Millennials favor government censorship of speech, the future doesn���t look promising.
Notice also that his reasoning doesn���t work the other way around���i.e., Greg wouldn���t be allowed to say to him, ������Tolerance��� means that if you think I���m wrong, then I have a right to shut you up,��� because baked into this new definition is a preference for a particular set of political positions (i.e., anything his side deems essential for the ���well-being of others���). If you agree with those positions, you���re declared ���tolerant.��� If you disagree, you���re intolerant.
This new definition of tolerance is nothing but a political tool to accomplish the very opposite of tolerance.
